Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
ouija ouija

9/11 Conspiracy Won't Go Away

60 posts in this topic

I'm posting this article because I'm sure I won't be the only one who discovers in it facts that they didn't know before.

Plus, it shows that there are still plenty of people who are determined to get to the truths of 9/11.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting read. My problem with conspiracy theories is that they muddy the waters and cloud the truth. The media is very good at that, Sandy Hook, MH370, JFK, just to name a few. 

I'm not saying this is a CT but it certainly feels like the "facts" have been muddied.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you ..... an incident doesn't have to be a conspiracy  to have elements of the truth purposely kept from the general public. 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, CT's hurt the families and provide no closure. We may never know the truth in our life time so all we can really do is speculate and wait.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

I'm posting this article because I'm sure I won't be the only one who discovers in it facts that they didn't know before.

Plus, it shows that there are still plenty of people who are determined to get to the truths of 9/11.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html

What 'new' facts? I had a quick skim of it and didn't see anything but the same old claims.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ ^ 'a quick skim' ........ you may not be able to see anything new to you, which is why I was careful to make it a personal statement. I discovered facts that I didn't know before so thought it safe to assume that there may be others who would find something new, to them, in the article.

From the article, facts that were new to me:   

"He is not alone in his quest. A survey in U.S. magazine Live Science last year revealed that most Americans (53 per cent) believe the U.S. Government has concealed — and continues to conceal — vital information about the 9/11 attacks. Crucially, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska concluded this week, after two years of forensic research, that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7.

Indeed, though the official story is that WTC7 was weakened by fires caused by debris from the attack, it’s the only steel skyscraper in the world ever to collapse purely as a result of a blaze.


In other words, on that September morning in 2001, did the White House fail to stop — or even fabricate — an outrage against its own civilians so as to provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden?

One of the most puzzling anomalies was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there would have been plenty of time to do so and it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack.

In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America.

In a statement made in 2007, a spokesman said: ‘In the chaos and confusion, I am sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate, but at the time were based on the best information we had. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage, for reasons of c***-up, not conspiracy.’"


 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

One of the most puzzling anomalies was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there would have been plenty of time to do so and it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack.

In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America.

This is what I didn't know, if true this raises questions outside of the conspiracy theory box.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You should have a read of this then:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks

As to the OP's link, then it is nothing new, just the same old claims.

Edited by Obviousman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, Obviousman said:

You should have a read of this then:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks

As to the OP's link, then it is nothing new, just the same old claims.

Okay, I get it, there's nothing new in it for you, but others, like myself, may find something they didn't know or had forgotten about.

edit to say: Perhaps a comparison can't realistically be made, but I just keep thinking of the Grenfell Tower fire in London, how every inch of that building was engulfed in fire, for hours, and yet it is still standing. It had 22 floors.

Edited by ouija ouija
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it is hard to believe that Bin Laden managed to organize such an attack on most powerful and technically advanced country in the world. This is very important in many aspects especially when national security is in question.

They have failed to protect Americans and i am not sure how many officials resigned because of that, did it happen? That alone makes me doubt official story, more precisely, some parts of it and some decisions made by officials after. 

I did not go into this event before because i believed that questioning and talking about it is disrespectful towards victims and their families but after many years i have realized that if we do not know full truth then we should try to find truth and in no way possible can truth be related to disrespect towards victims, actually, seeking truth is only way to show respect to those whos lives were destroyed that day and it is not only people who died or got injured that are victims, a lot more people mourned and a lot more people felt change in their life as a result of 9/11. 

Another thing which got me to read some works and watch many debates and dialogues about issue on youtube was story about Kurt Sonnenfeld. It's also interesting how Argentina is related with many events which included American enemies. Was there official organized debate in all these years, one which managed to dismiss all sorts of claims in propper way?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

For me it is hard to believe that Bin Laden managed to organize such an attack on most powerful and technically advanced country in the world. This is very important in many aspects especially when national security is in question.

What was difficult about it? Recruit some fanatics? Easy. Arrange flight training for said fanatics? Easy. Buy airline tickets for said fanatics? Easy. 

So where exactly is this insurmountable obstacle to OBL carrying out his plans?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

35 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

What was difficult about it? Recruit some fanatics? Easy. Arrange flight training for said fanatics? Easy. Buy airline tickets for said fanatics? Easy. 

So where exactly is this insurmountable obstacle to OBL carrying out his plans?

Many things look very easy on paper but when you start to work on it, it rarely plays out as planned. If ever, to be more precise.

There is civilian part of security and we must not overlook military and intelligence agencies which are on first lines in the fight for national security. Now, i might be wrong about structure of how things are done when national security in general is in question but it seems logical to me that Bin Laden and Afghanistan were well known to such powerful players.

What seems logical doesn't necessarily mean that it is true but it surely means that there is valid reason to think about it and to question it. Even being wrong and having enough honor to admit it - the whole process of questioning will give you invaluable experience, skills and knowledge.

If government knows the truth and if that truth equals what they have officially stated then it is in their best interest to respond to every claim on every possible level with great media coverage. I suppose that they have done that at least 10 years ago.

But have they done that, how does government deal with this issue in general? How did they act from the day of attack? 

If the government didn't come in the way of any independent investigation and wasn't acting without proof and if it didn't hide facts from the public than i agree, Bin Laden was able to do it and even tho it is still contrary to my common sense i obviously am not knowledgable enough to have better perception of the issue. So, talking only about if Bin Laden had the ability to do attack, it is one small and simple part of large and very tragic event.

Edited by Sir Smoke aLot
typo
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Many things look very easy on paper but when you start to work on it, it rarely plays out as planned. If ever, to be more precise.

There is civilian part of security and we must not overlook military and intelligence agencies which are on first lines in the fight for national security. Now, i might be wrong about structure of how things are done when national security in general is in question but it seems logical to me that Bin Laden and Afghanistan were well known to such powerful players.

What seems logical doesn't necessarily mean that it is true but it surely means that there is valid reason to think about it and to question it. Even being wrong and having enough honor to admit it - the whole process of questioning will give you invaluable experience, skills and knowledge.

If government knows the truth and if that truth equals what they have officially stated then it is in their best interest to respond to every claim on every possible level with great media coverage. I suppose that they have done that at least 10 years ago.

But have they done that, how does government deal with this issue in general? How did they act from the day of attack? 

If the government didn't come in the way of any independent investigation and wasn't acting without proof and if it didn't hide facts from the public than i agree, Bin Laden was able to do it and even tho it is still contrary to my common sense i obviously am not knowledgable enough to have better perception of the issue. So, talking only about if Bin Laden had the ability to do attack, it is one small and simple part of large and very tragic event.

Irrelevant. OBL had threatened to do exactly what he did years before. Then he did it. It wasn't difficult to organise. You still have not answered what exactly you think was insurmountable for OBL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

32 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Irrelevant. OBL had threatened to do exactly what he did years before. Then he did it. It wasn't difficult to organise. You still have not answered what exactly you think was insurmountable for OBL.

Coincidently picking the exact day and time our security systems were running drills rendering them ineffective in live time is one.

Then dropping 3 buildings with two planes, one of which was never even hit by a plane. That was pretty amazing.

Edited by preacherman76
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Irrelevant. OBL had threatened to do exactly what he did years before. Then he did it. It wasn't difficult to organise. You still have not answered what exactly you think was insurmountable for OBL.

Everyone can make his own conclusions and form opinion around them and i have told you why i doubt that Bin Laden had capability to do this, when compared to USA and all its military and technological might. No need to consider other things which i have mentioned in which there is answer for your question. What i have said above sounds perfectly resonable and enough, at least it does to me, to put doubt on Bin Laden's involvement. Why should i need solid proof to base my doubt over anything? Sounds more resonable that 'other side' is the one who provides those, government did make investigations afterall and i asked you what is there from it?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

Okay, I get it, there's nothing new in it for you, but others, like myself, may find something they didn't know or had forgotten about.

Like what, exactly?

Now something like, where in the hell did all the debris go, how did their collapses create such a small pile of remains? That might be a new and interesting topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AZDZ said:

Like what, exactly?

Now something like, where in the hell did all the debris go, how did their collapses create such a small pile of remains? That might be a new and interesting topic.

'Like what, exactly?'  Like everything in post #6 for a start. If none of this is new to you, then why bother to post here? Although I doubt whether you knew about the findings of the University of Alaska as they were only made public last week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ouija ouija said:

'Like what, exactly?'  Like everything in post #6 for a start. If none of this is new to you, then why bother to post here? Although I doubt whether you knew about the findings of the University of Alaska as they were only made public last week.

A study funded by 9-11 truthers with the intent of proving NIST wrong? Forgive me if I see a little bias there. Besides this, there seems to be significant debate among those with the requisite technical experience as to whether the computer modeling was accurate (e.g. NIST studied fire on 16 floors, this one only looked at two floors).

I see it being a little like the claim made by a Russian scientist that the Saturn V could not have flown the way it did. If you don't have background in the field, it looks legit. Once experts review it however, it is full of holes.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Obviousman said:

You should have a read of this then:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks

As to the OP's link, then it is nothing new, just the same old claims.

The official version of events seem that way to me.....the same old claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one am glad the OP posted the link, I stated what I found new to me hence her statement..

Quote

 I discovered facts that I didn't know before so thought it safe to assume that there may be others who would find something new, to them, in the article.

There were tons of articles, links, reports back then all saying something different, news agencies scrambling to be first to get the story and just spouting what they saw afterwards. What is past for others might be new to someone else.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Coincidently picking the exact day and time our security systems were running drills rendering them ineffective in live time is one.

Then dropping 3 buildings with two planes, one of which was never even hit by a plane. That was pretty amazing.

If their had been no drills at all, still no intercept was possible. There was insufficient time to do so.

What was WTC7 hit by? Do you know?

 

ETA: And flying a plane into a target as big as WTC1/2 is trivially easy.

Edited by Abaddonire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

Perhaps a comparison can't realistically be made, but I just keep thinking of the Grenfell Tower fire in London, how every inch of that building was engulfed in fire, for hours, and yet it is still standing. It had 22 floors.

Apart from the different type of structure, concrete is much less vulnerable to fire than steel, Grenfell Tower didn't have the structural damage of the WTC towers, nor the situation where there was no water available to fight the fires.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

'Like what, exactly?'  Like everything in post #6 for a start. If none of this is new to you, then why bother to post here? Although I doubt whether you knew about the findings of the University of Alaska as they were only made public last week.

According to that paragraph it is still just another person saying WTC7 could not have just fallen down. A position I agree with btw, but what can be done?

Even if they build an exact replica of B7, replicate every condition and in the end prove the building must have been pre-wired to detonate and fall, so what? You really think heads would roll? LMAO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AZDZ said:

According to that paragraph it is still just another person saying WTC7 could not have just fallen down. A position I agree with btw, but what can be done?

Even if they build an exact replica of B7, replicate every condition and in the end prove the building must have been pre-wired to detonate and fall, so what? You really think heads would roll? LMAO!

Probably not, but the most important thing always is that the truth gets out and everyone knows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know about WTC7.   But IMO no-one expected the twin towers to collapse   And the reason they did is the real conspiracy, but one totally ignored (some other conspiracies may have been invented to cover it up though).  When you think you have a house of stone and it turns out to have been made of straw ;) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.